VR6 4 motion and R32 VR6 Cams

I am looking at upgrading the Cams in both the Vento with a 4 motion engine and the beetle with the R32 engine.

Cam suppliers are saying that the cams are the same for both engines. Is anyone aware if this is the case as I would have suepected that the R32 cams would be longer as the engine is bigger or is the engine not bigger and the difference is that the block is bored out more?

Thanks

 

Displacement is affected by the bottom end. Head dimensions might be different though.

 

I can't read that without laughing for some reason.

I know the exhaust ports on the R32 are miles bigger than the 4 motion. I bet Mushy16v would know about the cams.

 

I doubt that you would be able to interchange the cams at all. I know the Pre 2001 4motions with engine code AUE had variable valve timing on the inlet cam, the later ones with code BDE had it on the exhaust as well. 1990 is right that they also made the R32 exhaust ports larger. Its what gives the R32 that free revving feeling at high RPM's. Either way even if you do get cams on those engines the performance gain isn't going to be huge.

 

we are only looking for a performance gain of 20-30bhp as currently we run a standard engine that has been balanced with KMS ecu which has been tuned to a safe limit to ensure reliability.

I appreciate the displacement is bigger but wondered if cams were longer in the r32 because of the larger displacement?

 

BDE/BDF 2.8 and MK4 R32 cams are the same. Dimensionally at least.

Things get complicated with MK5 cams and VVT housings, so stick to MK4 / 2.8 cams if possible! What age R32 lump is in the Beetle?

As said already, early 2.8 24V (AUE) uses completely different cams and head to the rest of the 24Vs.
R32 capacity comes mainly from increased stroke, but the pistons are also 3mm bigger than 2.8.
The R32 also has much bigger intake ports. Bigger intake manifold. Bigger valves. Bigger everything!

These are good value cams - http://techtonicstuning.com/main/in...ct_info&cPath=2_14_101_427_104&products_id=72

If you're going for high rpm (7000+rpm), this thread might be worth a read - http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5831816-Ferrea-lifter-shims

 

The beetle is running a toureg r32 engine converted from the 4 motion engine as we did the conversion. We have however changed the head to put on a mk4 r32 head as the engine over heated.

What get complicated about the mk5 head as I thought it was the same as the mk4 apart from the cams and ecu setup as gives more power.

Thanks for links I will take a closer look.

 

Then you're good to go with 2.8 / 3.2 cams then The aftermarket profile (e.g. 264, 268, 272 etc) is the same for both engines.

Nobody knows the full extent of the changes but we do know that the MK5 got a different exhaust cam, which throws up fault codes if you don't use a specific ECU. There must also be machining differences because the techtonics link I posted is for 2.8/MK4 only. I suspect the holes for the VVT housing are machined at a different offset compared to MK4.
Some folk have said the head itself is different to MK4 as well, but I don't know what changed.

The extra 10hp the MK5 gives over MK3 comes from the bigger MAF.

 

"Cam Position / Engine Speed - Correlation error - Cam 2" which basically means the ECU can't see the exhaust cam. It then fixes the intake cam to 27 deg advance across the entire rev range as part of it's limp mode contingency.

The specified cam advance at idle is 0 deg. So 27 deg makes it a little lumpy and also flat in the midrange, where it's normally ~ 43 deg advanced.

 

I used the BDB engine and loom, which I think is a 2006 vintage, so MK5?

 

I have a brown plug on my VVT adjuster, but the solenoids are both black and the plugs are the same size also. I have the older black cam sensors though, and not the small grey ones.

Ever since Vince remapped my ECU, I've been averaging 32mpg! And that's calculated the good old fashioned way. I cruise at 85-90, have the shorter 3.68 final drive and give it a bit of heavy throttle occasionally. Pretty happy with that. I reckon I can get it up to 35mpg if babying it

 

God knows mate, probably emissions as you say. They also dropped the compression ratio from 11.3 to 10.85 on the MK5, but then again, even standard MK5 R32s knock frequently, so it's not hard to see why

Yeah my Rado is 2WD. ~1250kg vs ~1500kg is where much of the mpg comes from, but I'm still impressed that a carefully driven 3.2 can match a carefully driven 12V for economy

Yeah I really rate Vince as a mapper. He's all about drivability over outright power. He takes a lot of the snatchy throttle behaviour out of the <1500rpm area, making it far more civilised in traffic. Mine made 260hp. Could have made the standard 280 but I'm running a stock Corrado airbox and standard 4Mo manifolds. A BMC alone is worth 10-13hp on the 32. But I'm happy with the OE look and I don't like using cotton filters with MAFs.